Latest news with #NASAGoddardInstituteforSpaceStudies
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Science
- Yahoo
NASA scientists describe ‘absolute sh*tshow' at agency as Trump budget seeks to dismantle top US climate lab
NASA scientists are in a state of anxious limbo after the Trump administration proposed a budget that would eliminate one of the United States' top climate labs – the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, or GISS – as a standalone entity. In its place, it would move some of the lab's functions into a broader environmental modeling effort across the agency. Career specialists are now working remotely, awaiting details and even more unsure about their future at the lab after they were kicked out of their longtime home in New York City last week. Closing the lab for good could jeopardize its value and the country's leadership role in global climate science, sources say. 'It's an absolute sh*tshow,' one GISS scientist said under condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media. 'Morale at GISS has never been lower, and it feels for all of us that we are being abandoned by NASA leadership.' 'We are supposedly going to be integrated into this new virtual NASA modeling institute, but (we have) no idea what that will actually look like,' they said. NASA is defending its budget proposal, with a nod toward the lab's future. 'NASA's GISS has a significant place in the history of space science and its work is critical for the Earth Science Division, particularly as the division looks to the future of its modeling work and capabilities,' NASA spokesperson Cheryl Warner said in a statement. 'Fundamental contributions in research and applications from GISS directly impact daily life by showing the Earth system connections that impact the air we breathe, our health, the food we grow, and the cities we live in,' Warner said. GISS has a storied history in climate science on the global scale. James Hansen, a former director, first called national attention to human-caused global warming at a Senate hearing during the hot summer of 1988. The lab, founded in 1961, is still known worldwide for its computer modeling of the planet that enable scientists to make projections for how climate change may affect global temperatures, precipitation, extreme weather events and other variables. The about 125 scientists who work there are also known for tracking global temperatures, with GISS' records serving as one of the independent checks on other labs around the world monitoring global warming. The lab stands out, the scientist said, for its 'fundamental work contributing to our understanding of global warming, volcanic and aerosol forcing of climate, and advances in detection and attribution' of climate change impacts. 'All work that was curiosity-driven and enabled by the autonomy we had at GISS to pursue these questions,' they said, adding: 'Everyone is stressed because we have no clarity from leadership on even what the long-term plan is. (It) Really feels like we are just being left to die on the vine.' Another GISS scientist, who also spoke under the condition of anonymity, said the lab's independence has been key to its success, which can be seen in the abundance of published studies from researchers at the facility. The autonomy afforded to GISS over the years, given its distance from NASA headquarters in Washington, and its academic-like freedom helped its researchers take on important studies that might not be pursued in other circumstances, they said. And unlike high-level managers at NASA, GISS' leadership received high marks for their communications and advocacy of the center's work, according to three researchers. 'It is important for climate modeling to continue,' one of the GISS researchers said. 'They're the best tools that we have for the planet.' A technical NASA budget supplement released late last week committed to 'strengthening America's leadership in space exploration while exercising fiscal responsibility. NASA is adapting the way we work and invest to accomplish our mission,' Warner, the spokesperson, said. That Republicans' proposed NASA budget includes funding for climate modeling at all is notable, considering its cuts for space exploration and overall Earth science. Numerous space exploration missions and satellites would be abandoned under the budget, including some satellites already in space that are actively sending climate-related data back to Earth. The budget supplement makes GISS' fate both clear and hazy. It states Earth system modeling activities at four different NASA centers will be merged into one 'virtual institute.' This would incorporate 'core capabilities' of GISS 'as needed,' it adds. 'GISS as an independent entity will not continue,' the document says. This fate may be considerably better for NASA's climate scientists than the worst-case scenario seen at agencies like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, where the budget for nearly its entire weather and climate research portfolio would be zeroed out and most of its research labs shuttered. Overall, the NASA budget would be a 24% cut compared to last year, with a 47% cut to agency science activities, according to The Planetary Society, a group that advances space science and innovation. Its analysis found the NASA funding level would be the smallest since 1961 when adjusted for inflation. The ultimate decisions on the future of climate modeling at NASA, as well as its space exploration activities, will fall to Congress as members consider the budget proposal, adding even more uncertainty to an already fraught period for GISS's staff.
CNN
3 days ago
- Business
- CNN
NASA scientists describe ‘absolute sh*tshow' at agency as Trump budget seeks to dismantle top US climate lab
Federal agencies Space programs Climate changeFacebookTweetLink Follow NASA scientists are in a state of anxious limbo after the Trump administration proposed a budget that would eliminate one of the United States' top climate labs – the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, or GISS – as a standalone entity. In its place, it would move some of the lab's functions into a broader environmental modeling effort across the agency. Career specialists are now working remotely, awaiting details and even more unsure about their future at the lab after they were kicked out of their longtime home in New York City last week. Closing the lab for good could jeopardize its value and the country's leadership role in global climate science, sources say. 'It's an absolute sh*tshow,' one GISS scientist said under condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media. 'Morale at GISS has never been lower, and it feels for all of us that we are being abandoned by NASA leadership.' 'We are supposedly going to be integrated into this new virtual NASA modeling institute, but (we have) no idea what that will actually look like,' they said. NASA is defending its budget proposal, with a nod toward the lab's future. 'NASA's GISS has a significant place in the history of space science and its work is critical for the Earth Science Division, particularly as the division looks to the future of its modeling work and capabilities,' NASA spokesperson Cheryl Warner said in a statement. 'Fundamental contributions in research and applications from GISS directly impact daily life by showing the Earth system connections that impact the air we breathe, our health, the food we grow, and the cities we live in,' Warner said. GISS has a storied history in climate science on the global scale. James Hansen, a former director, first called national attention to human-caused global warming at a Senate hearing during the hot summer of 1988. The lab, founded in 1961, is still known worldwide for its computer modeling of the planet that enable scientists to make projections for how climate change may affect global temperatures, precipitation, extreme weather events and other variables. The about 125 scientists who work there are also known for tracking global temperatures, with GISS' records serving as one of the independent checks on other labs around the world monitoring global warming. The lab stands out, the scientist said, for its 'fundamental work contributing to our understanding of global warming, volcanic and aerosol forcing of climate, and advances in detection and attribution' of climate change impacts. 'All work that was curiosity-driven and enabled by the autonomy we had at GISS to pursue these questions,' they said, adding: 'Everyone is stressed because we have no clarity from leadership on even what the long-term plan is. (It) Really feels like we are just being left to die on the vine.' Another GISS scientist, who also spoke under the condition of anonymity, said the lab's independence has been key to its success, which can be seen in the abundance of published studies from researchers at the facility. The autonomy afforded to GISS over the years, given its distance from NASA headquarters in Washington, and its academic-like freedom helped its researchers take on important studies that might not be pursued in other circumstances, they said. And unlike high-level managers at NASA, GISS' leadership received high marks for their communications and advocacy of the center's work, according to three researchers. 'It is important for climate modeling to continue,' one of the GISS researchers said. 'They're the best tools that we have for the planet.' A technical NASA budget supplement released late last week committed to 'strengthening America's leadership in space exploration while exercising fiscal responsibility. NASA is adapting the way we work and invest to accomplish our mission,' Warner, the spokesperson, said. That Republicans' proposed NASA budget includes funding for climate modeling at all is notable, considering its cuts for space exploration and overall Earth science. Numerous space exploration missions and satellites would be abandoned under the budget, including some satellites already in space that are actively sending climate-related data back to Earth. The budget supplement makes GISS' fate both clear and hazy. It states Earth system modeling activities at four different NASA centers will be merged into one 'virtual institute.' This would incorporate 'core capabilities' of GISS 'as needed,' it adds. 'GISS as an independent entity will not continue,' the document says. This fate may be considerably better for NASA's climate scientists than the worst-case scenario seen at agencies like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, where the budget for nearly its entire weather and climate research portfolio would be zeroed out and most of its research labs shuttered. Overall, the NASA budget would be a 24% cut compared to last year, with a 47% cut to agency science activities, according to The Planetary Society, a group that advances space science and innovation. Its analysis found the NASA funding level would be the smallest since 1961 when adjusted for inflation. The ultimate decisions on the future of climate modeling at NASA, as well as its space exploration activities, will fall to Congress as members consider the budget proposal, adding even more uncertainty to an already fraught period for GISS's staff.
Yahoo
09-02-2025
- Science
- Yahoo
Scientists have some novel ideas to save the ice caps. Here are the most out-of-the-box suggestions
The problem is clear: the world's glaciers are melting, causing sea levels to rise. As global temperatures soar due to the continued influx of greenhouse gases trapped in the Earth's atmosphere, melting glaciers are adding more water to the oceans. Sea level rise is projected to encroach on coastlines, affecting communities and ecosystems. As a result of this human-caused climate change, global rates of sea level rise have been unprecedented over the past 2,500-plus years. An inundation of freshwater in the ocean would also affect the ocean's currents, which depend on a delicate balance of salinity, density, and temperature to churn and regulate Earth's climate. To address these concerns, scientists are developing mitigation and adaptation strategies that they think could help save us and the glaciers — large sheets of ice and snow found on every continent but Australia — from worsening impacts. But, right now, these measures are largely theoretical. 'Just as many humans take supplements to counter bone mass loss after a certain age, there may be low-cost, low-impact, logistically simple methods to counter ice sheet mass loss,' Dr. Ken Mankoff, senior scientific programmer at New York's NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told The Independent via email on Thursday. 'It's worth exploring if this is possible.' One approach would be to stop warm ocean water from flowing underneath the Antarctic ice shelves using giant curtains or submarine seawalls to hold it back. Although, what exactly the curtains would be made out of has yet to be determined. Scientists told Grist last year that they could potentially use air as that barrier, pumping it from a pipe drilled with holes. A second idea is increasing the friction between glaciers and the rock that's below their ice in order to slow them down, as they naturally begin to slide out or down under the pressure of their own weight. This strategy would pump water either into or out of the cracks between the ice and the Earth's rocky crust to control that friction and potentially slow down a glacier's movement. A third method shared by Douglas MacAyeal, professor emeritus from the University of Chicago's Department of Geophysical Science, is to pump water on parts of the Antarctic ice sheet in the winter. The water would then freeze over and thicken the ice to the point where it would also increase the friction, making the ice shelves so thick that they can't even move over bays. He explained that the various proposals on the table are based on our understanding of how glaciers in Antarctica and Greenland naturally change, as they move in response to gravitational forces and stress. Still, scientists don't yet know if these ideas would be enough to stop the melt of something like the Thwaites 'Doomsday' Glacier. That glacier alone is responsible for about a percent of global sea level rise. 'Could we really do that?' he wondered. 'Even though, we know other glaciers have been stopped in the past by changing water at their bed or by the fact that there's different oceanographic heat fluxes to their grounding lines.' Ocean heat-blocking interventions — including the curtain or seawall — have the most research, Dr. Michael Wolovick, postdoctoral researcher at the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, explained via email. He believes that they're 'probably the most likely to be effective.' 'Whole-planet interventions like stratospheric aerosol injection would also benefit the ice sheets, although they would probably have a bigger immediate impact on Greenland than Antarctica, because Greenland loses more mass to surface melt at the present day,' he noted. Aerosol injections, shooting particles made of sulfur compounds into the air like a volcano does, may lower the Earth's temperature by reflecting away solar radiation. However, the wider implications of that plan are worrying. But while theories are abundant in glacial engineering, making them a reality would prove difficult. It would take decades to make the necessary measurements to understand what it would actually take to perform such interventions, Slawek Tulaczyk, a glaciologist at UC Santa Cruz, and Wolovick both pointed out. 'It is important to keep in mind that we still have a great deal of uncertainty, but despite this uncertainty, we still need to make decisions and act,' Wolovick said. Glaciers are expected to undergo major changes in the coming decades. Two-thirds of glaciers are slated to disappear by 2100, according to a 2023 study published in the journal Science. More than 400 billion tons of ice have already been lost since the mid-1990s. But for some scientists, these long-term projects carry risks — including potential impacts on the climate — that aren't worth taking. 'They tend to be very difficult to scale. They often involve extensive resources and additional emissions themselves,' said Dr. Twila Moon, Deputy Lead Scientist and Science Communication Liaison at the National Snow and Ice Data Center. 'Many of them are likely to have unintended consequences for the environment or may even alter the ice, be it the glacier or sea ice surface, in ways that can actually exacerbate the problem.' Moon cited the end of the non-profit Arctic Ice Project that was experimenting with using silica beads to slow ice melt in the Arctic. Testing revealed that the plan had 'potential risks to the Arctic food chain,' but the group blamed a 'broad skepticism toward geoengineering' for its decision to shut down. 'And, I think for myself and many in the glaciology scientific community, we'd really like to see folks focusing on mitigation and successful adaptation,' Moon said. Jeremy Bassis, a professor at the University of Michigan, told The Independent that he believes geoengineering is 'never going to play a meaningful role as part of a climate solution.' He likened it to taking a painkiller for a cavity without a plan to see a dentist. 'So, if we don't address the underlying cause of sea level rise, there is nothing geoengineering, that we can do that will stop sea level rise,' he said. MacAyeal has heard criticism of the field, which he said is at a crossroads. He pointed out that the goal is, in no way, designed to provide an excuse for anyone to not regard the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions as the number one way in which humans can advance a better future. 'Even though, the idea that if we develop knowledge on glacial geoengineering, that'll be a deterrence to further emission reduction. That is one of the main criticisms of all geoengineering,' said MacYeal. 'I don't know how to answer that criticism other than … in my gut feeling, knowledge is better than ignorance. And, maybe if we fail to curb climate change, maybe we might have to resort to some of these things,' he said.
The Independent
09-02-2025
- Science
- The Independent
Scientists have some novel ideas to save the ice caps. Here are the most out-of-the-box suggestions
The problem is clear: the world's glaciers are melting, causing sea levels to rise. As global temperatures soar due to the continued influx of greenhouse gases trapped in the Earth's atmosphere, melting glaciers are adding more water to the oceans. Sea level rise is projected to encroach on coastlines, affecting communities and ecosystems. As a result of this human-caused climate change, global rates of sea level rise have been unprecedented over the past 2,500-plus years. An inundation of freshwater in the ocean would also affect the ocean's currents, which depend on a delicate balance of salinity, density, and temperature to churn and regulate Earth's climate. To address these concerns, scientists are developing mitigation and adaptation strategies that they think could help save us and the glaciers — large sheets of ice and snow found on every continent but Australia — from worsening impacts. But, right now, these measures are largely theoretical. 'Just as many humans take supplements to counter bone mass loss after a certain age, there may be low-cost, low-impact, logistically simple methods to counter ice sheet mass loss,' Dr. Ken Mankoff, senior scientific programmer at New York's NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told The Independent via email on Thursday. 'It's worth exploring if this is possible.' Ocean heat-blocking One approach would be to stop warm ocean water from flowing underneath the Antarctic ice shelves using giant curtains or submarine seawalls to hold it back. Although, what exactly the curtains would be made out of has yet to be determined. Scientists told Grist last year that they could potentially use air as that barrier, pumping it from a pipe drilled with holes. Controlling glacier friction A second idea is increasing the friction between glaciers and the rock that's below their ice in order to slow them down, as they naturally begin to slide out or down under the pressure of their own weight. This strategy would pump water either into or out of the cracks between the ice and the Earth's rocky crust to control that friction and potentially slow down a glacier's movement. Thickening the ice A third method shared by Douglas MacAyeal, professor emeritus from the University of Chicago's Department of Geophysical Science, is to pump water on parts of the Antarctic ice sheet in the winter. The water would then freeze over and thicken the ice to the point where it would also increase the friction, making the ice shelves so thick that they can't even move over bays. He explained that the various proposals on the table are based on our understanding of how glaciers in Antarctica and Greenland naturally change, as they move in response to gravitational forces and stress. Still, scientists don't yet know if these ideas would be enough to stop the melt of something like the Thwaites 'Doomsday' Glacier. That glacier alone is responsible for about a percent of global sea level rise. 'Could we really do that?' he wondered. 'Even though, we know other glaciers have been stopped in the past by changing water at their bed or by the fact that there's different oceanographic heat fluxes to their grounding lines.' Ocean heat-blocking interventions — including the curtain or seawall — have the most research, Dr. Michael Wolovick, postdoctoral researcher at the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, explained via email. He believes that they're 'probably the most likely to be effective.' 'Whole-planet interventions like stratospheric aerosol injection would also benefit the ice sheets, although they would probably have a bigger immediate impact on Greenland than Antarctica, because Greenland loses more mass to surface melt at the present day,' he noted. Sulfate aerosol injections Aerosol injections, shooting particles made of sulfur compounds into the air like a volcano does, may lower the Earth's temperature by reflecting away solar radiation. However, the wider implications of that plan are worrying. But while theories are abundant in glacial engineering, making them a reality would prove difficult. It would take decades to make the necessary measurements to understand what it would actually take to perform such interventions, Slawek Tulaczyk, a glaciologist at UC Santa Cruz, and Wolovick both pointed out. 'It is important to keep in mind that we still have a great deal of uncertainty, but despite this uncertainty, we still need to make decisions and act,' Wolovick said. Glaciers are expected to undergo major changes in the coming decades. Two-thirds of glaciers are slated to disappear by 2100, according to a 2023 study published in the journal Science. More than 400 billion tons of ice have already been lost since the mid-1990s. But for some scientists, these long-term projects carry risks — including potential impacts on the climate — that aren't worth taking. 'They tend to be very difficult to scale. They often involve extensive resources and additional emissions themselves,' said Dr. Twila Moon, Deputy Lead Scientist and Science Communication Liaison at the National Snow and Ice Data Center. 'Many of them are likely to have unintended consequences for the environment or may even alter the ice, be it the glacier or sea ice surface, in ways that can actually exacerbate the problem.' Moon cited the end of the non-profit Arctic Ice Project that was experimenting with using silica beads to slow ice melt in the Arctic. Testing revealed that the plan had 'potential risks to the Arctic food chain,' but the group blamed a 'broad skepticism toward geoengineering' for its decision to shut down. 'And, I think for myself and many in the glaciology scientific community, we'd really like to see folks focusing on mitigation and successful adaptation,' Moon said. Jeremy Bassis, a professor at the University of Michigan, told The Independent that he believes geoengineering is 'never going to play a meaningful role as part of a climate solution.' He likened it to taking a painkiller for a cavity without a plan to see a dentist. 'So, if we don't address the underlying cause of sea level rise, there is nothing geoengineering, that we can do that will stop sea level rise,' he said. MacAyeal has heard criticism of the field, which he said is at a crossroads. He pointed out that the goal is, in no way, designed to provide an excuse for anyone to not regard the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions as the number one way in which humans can advance a better future. 'Even though, the idea that if we develop knowledge on glacial geoengineering, that'll be a deterrence to further emission reduction. That is one of the main criticisms of all geoengineering,' said MacYeal. 'I don't know how to answer that criticism other than … in my gut feeling, knowledge is better than ignorance. And, maybe if we fail to curb climate change, maybe we might have to resort to some of these things,' he said.
